Maybe because they are so "common".
Back when I used to work retail, I noticed that 135mm lenses were universally
cheap for almost every brand, second only to 50mm 1.8 lenses, and followed
closely by 35mm lenses. In the olden days, after the ubiquitous
"body-and-standard-lens" package, the major players most often packaged the
body/standard lens with either a 135mm and/or a 35mm lens.
This might be because they were optically simple to make, so the camera
companies would make a lot of them cheaply. And with greater production comes
even greater economy of scale. The problem was, since they were so cheap and
common, nobody was interested in them! They were so cheap they couldn't get any
respect -- sort of like the 50mm 1.8's, if everyone has one, it _can't_ be any
good, right? A _real_ photographer would buy a 100mm or a 55mm 1.2!
Beyond that, the only concern technically is that later versions of the 135mm
(both 2.8 and 3.5) have a plastic frame inside the mount that holds the parts in
place. That would be fine except that one of the parts is the spring for the
latch. This spring, which holds the lens lock in place, sometimes breaks
loose. When that happens, the lens will mount but not lock in place. It's an
easy fix, but a nusance.
Douglas Tourtelot wrote:
> Can anyone tell me if the Zuiko 135/2.8 has a bad reputation? I was
> comparing prices and it is always radically less expensive than the 100/2.8.
> Just more made, or not as good? Or both?
>
> Also OT: Does anyone know where I can buy a refurbished Epson 740 printer.
> I know. Pretty far OT, but it is, allegedly, a photo printer<g>.
>
> D.
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|